 I don't usually pay much attention to Hollywood award shows like The Golden Globes or The Oscars, but I'm going to make an exception for one of this year's Academy Award nominees for best film, The Trial of the Chicago Seven. Written and directed by Aaron Sorkin and starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Eddie Redmayne, John Carol Lynch, Mark Rylance, and Sasha Baron Cohen, the movie is based on a true story. Sorkin sets the stage with incredible efficiency. 1968, different groups of activists with different agendas all descend on the Democratic National Convention to protest the Vietnam War. Protesters clash with Chicago police and the National Guard. The question is, who started the fight? Were you hoping for a confrontation with the police? I'm concerned you have to think about it. Give me a moment, would you friend? I've never been on trial for my thoughts before. The movie, and the actual trial, involves eight men, more on that later, accused of a national conspiracy to come to Chicago and incite a ***. The accused maintained they had simply come to protest the Vietnam War peacefully and that it was the Chicago police who had instigated the violence. But what was really on trial was the credibility of the anti-war movement in the United States. This is a political trial that was already decided for us. Ignoring that reality is just weird to me. There's no big dramatic turn or Perry Mason moment in the film. It's all a matter of historical record to begin with. But there will be some spoilers ahead. So with that warning out of the way, smash that like button and grab your suit jacket because we are cross-examining a brilliant courtroom drama on this short edition of Out of Frame. Before we jump into the themes and ideas of the movie, let's back up a moment and get some context. The history of the United States military intervention in Vietnam is longer and more complicated than many people realize and can be traced back to the French occupation of the country. But there was a tipping point in 1964 over the alleged torpedoing of the USS Maddox by the North Vietnamese communists in the Gulf of Tonkin. This led Congress to grant President Johnson the power to take all necessary measures including the use of armed force against any aggressor in Vietnam. So Johnson initiated a new military draft conscripting young men to go fight overseas. The conflict was brutal with around 60,000 US soldiers killed and more than 300,000 injured over the course of the war. The casualty rate rivaled World War II, but the rate of amputations and other crippling wounds was three times higher. With no clearly defined enemy or goals and shockingly bad publicity as a result of morally derelict actions taken by US military units caught on camera, Vietnam was not a popular war. So, in 1968, a strange confluence of hippies, conscientious objectors, progressive college students, civil rights activists and pro-communist organizations converged at protests all over the country. And as the conflict escalated ahead of the presidential election, anti-war leaders saw the Democratic National Convention in Chicago as the perfect opportunity to get more national attention. On the other hand, the last thing Mayor Richard Daley wanted was a disruption in the city during his party's convention. Unfortunately for him, at this point I want to draw your attention to the First Amendment. I know, we've been talking about this a lot lately, and that's for some very good reasons. But the First Amendment covers more than just freedom of speech. Relevant to our discussion here is the bit about the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In this situation, the group involved did what they were supposed to do. They informed the city that they were coming and what they intended to do. They wanted to peacefully assemble, as is their constitutionally protected right. They were denied on what may already have been unconstitutional grounds. But despite the lack of official permission, multiple groups showed up to protest the war anyway and the government treated them like an invading army. Mayor Daley brought in more than 13,000 U.S. Army and National Guard troops to support the 12,000 police officers who are already there. And everyone seemed to be looking for a fight. As I've said repeatedly on this series, I strongly condemn anyone who initiates force against other people. And I have little use for protesters or police who come to a demonstration and promote or engage in violence. But when the government restricts people's ability to exercise one of their most fundamental rights and then responds with aggressive displays of force, well, that's how you get riots. So while this isn't a defense of anyone's actions, the resulting conflict just seems so predictable. In the trial of the Chicago Seven, we see the event through flashbacks and voiceover in the form of Abbey Hoffman's stand-up routine, a combination that sounds like it shouldn't work but is actually incredibly effective. And of course, there's the trial itself. The federal government accused Yippies, Abbey Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, socialist pacifist David Dellinger, students for a Democratic society leaders Tom Hayden and Renny Davis, radical activist John Froyns and Lee Weiner, and Black Panther Party founder Bobby Seal, of conspiracy to incite a riot and a litany of other crimes. Problem is, very few of them had ever met and their various factions didn't actually get along. And in Bobby Seal's case, he wasn't even in Chicago for 24 hours, having spoken at a rally and left before the riot began. Seal was eventually dropped from the list of defendants due to the court's disgraceful and repeated violation of his right to an attorney at the hands of Julius Hoffman, an incompetent and openly biased judge. And look, this is Aaron Sorkin. This movie is not a faithful representation of the court proceedings, but if anything, from a fairness and human rights perspective, some of the worst aspects of the trial were probably watered down. It's one of the most notorious trials in recent history, and in 1972 an appeals court reversed all of the guilty verdicts on the grounds that Judge Hoffman improperly excluded evidence and testimony, failed to examine the jury's biases, and gave instructions to the jury without notifying the defense. In the words of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the demeanor of the judge and the prosecutors would require reversal, even if errors did not. This movie makes me angry, and keeps me angry, but it demonstrates why equality under the law is so important. I don't agree with the politics or political solutions proposed by students for a democratic society. I don't condone the flexible morality of Abbie Hoffman and his yippies. I definitely don't support the militant communist beliefs of the Black Panther Party, but I don't support police brutality or corrupt politicians either, and they were as much to blame for the violence as anyone on trial. Perhaps the only thing that all the defendants believed that I do agree with is that the Vietnam War was a bad idea and that military conscription is deeply immoral. But even that shouldn't matter. The state was not able to prove that they committed any kind of conspiracy to incite a riot simply by showing up to speak and protest in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention, and what was done to those men in that courtroom was unacceptable. Everyone deserves a fair and impartial trial. Everyone also has the right to peacefully assemble and tell the government what they think it's doing wrong. Everyone, without exception. The protection and defense of the rights to peaceful association and expression are not and should not be conditional on whether or not you or I agree with how those rights are used. So, for the state to deny the rally and organize a massive military and police force intended to keep them from exercising their rights was inexcusable from the beginning, no matter how popular the decision was with Mayor Daley, the Democratic Party, and Chicago voters. For me, individual rights are not up for debate. If you believe that you should be allowed to speak freely, peacefully protest what you feel is intolerable and be guaranteed a fair and impartial trial if you're accused of doing something wrong, then you must stand up for those rights for everybody. If you only take one lesson from the trial of the Chicago Seven, I hope that's the one. Hey everybody, thanks for watching this episode of Out of Frame. If you want to learn more about this subject, I would recommend the 1987 documentary Conspiracy, The Trial of the Chicago Eight, which you can find on Amazon Prime Video if you're interested. Let me know what you think about this episode and the movie in the comments. And if you want to join us in an even broader discussion, we'd love to have you join us on Discord. Our server has been growing incredibly quickly and we'd love to see you there. Also, check out our Behind the Scenes podcast. We talk about a lot of movies, shows, books, and other things that don't necessarily make it into Out of Frame. It comes out every Friday, but supporters on Patreon and Subscribestar get early access, special bonus content, and access to an exclusive channel in our Discord server. The links to that and everything else I mentioned are in the description below. As always, please like this video and ring that bell icon to get notifications for the channel and share this video with your friends. I'll see you next time.